U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

You started out saying a moral person would say that the positive consequences of the gilded age were not worth its negative experiences. I disagree.

You then say: "Ignoring that it's very odd to retroactively justify immoral behavior because of unintended, positive side effects: I'm saying that being critical, like asking if the slave-like conditions of most of the population were actually necessary, is a pretty reasonable thing to do."

By saying this you are effectively saying that I am defending immoral behavior with the misconception that such behavior directly led unintentionally to positive consequences. I don't think that, and I'm not doing that. I'm specifically saying that removing 'robber barons' from the equation entirely removes both the positive effects and actions and the negative. The positive and negative are done by the same person, but the actions causing them were entirely different. This isn't simple, as you continue to point out (while, it seems, attempting to simplify it entirely)

People want to reduce inequality - ok, how? I think that's important to figure out. What kind of inequality? Wealth or income or some other kind? What is the consequence of inequality?

To find out, we need to view history as a complex thing and understand both the pleasant and unpleasant, as well as their consequences. Conflict has been a powerful tool, historically. The excesses of one group have often given rise to conflict with another group, which then created a system of greater equality. Could that have happened without the conflict? I'm not sure, I don't have many examples where that happened and a ton of examples where it didn't.

There are a lot of times where people did awful things and they either didn't result in positive consequences or what was positive was not worth the loss. The Gilded Age? Probably not one of those times.

Just as if I chose to go live in the wilderness, it would only make sense that my income would drop. No one would be at fault and I wouldn't expect the government to make up the difference for my "lost" income.

The main price increase in the bay area has been housing -- rent is still housing -- and the reason for that isn't primarily incomes. It's artificial scarcity (from zoning) in the face of increasing population. In a normal market without the artificial restrictions, the fact that people are willing to pay a million dollars for housing would cause lots of new housing to be constructed which would bring the price down.

Incomes contribute, because if housing cost that much and people weren't making that much money then they would move out of the area (which would lower demand), but those prices would never be sustainable without the restrictions on new construction.

But more importantly, this is all about relativity. If Bob has twenty dollars, Alice has ten and Charlie has one, and you print three more dollars and give each person one, now there is going to be ~10% inflation because $31 used to exist and now $34 exists. But now Charlie has $2 which are worth as much as $1.82 used to be, which is less than $2, but he's still up $0.82.

And on top of that, a UBI doesn't actually create new money. Everyone gets a dollar, but it's because Alice paid $1 in taxes and then got it back and Bob paid $2 in taxes $1 of which went to Charlie. There is no new money to cause inflation, it's just redistribution.

In theory there could be relative demand shifts, if Charlie likes to buy different stuff than Bob would have, but unless that stuff is in limited supply, people will just make more of it. And if it is in limited supply, it still works as redistribution because it just means we're back to relativity -- even if things did cost more, it still increases the proportion of things that Charlie gets.

> I don't understand why people are pushing for redistribution of income rather than redistribution of goods like we pretty much did with utilities, public transport and, to a certain degree, internet.

I don't understand what "redistribution of goods" means. More free public infrastructure? There are good reasons to do that for natural monopolies like roads and utilities, but that's a completely different thing, and we can do both at the same time.